RPG Superstar 2013
|
Are you really saying that the most salient point is that wealthier people are more reasonable in some sense ? And thus, less prone to commit crimes ? The current economic hell people all over the world see themselves into speaks against this very notion.
When I say 'the most salient point', what I mean is the point I am trying to make in this talk. I did not say wealthier people are more reasonable at all. I said wealthier people are more responsible. Not because they are wealthy - that is what makes them wealthy. The same person that can say no to speeding tickets and manages their affairs in a way that a setbakc is not the end of the world is a person who is more likely to become wealthy than a person who speeds even though they can't afford a ticket.
The fine is set for a crime. If you can't afford it, don't do it. No one bears any responsiblity if I get ticketed other than me. I've got no case if I defend myself by saying 'a ticket would crush my family right now'. The right thing would be not to have gotten the ticket in the beginning.
In this country, we have GOT to stop assuming wealthy people are somehow evil and unwealthy people are some sort of downtrodden noble caste. Niether of those is true. If something costs a higher percentage fo your income, make more money. If you don't feel the climate is fair, vote to change it. But the best vote you can cast is for someone who wants to ease the pain for the people who make jobs and manage their companies wisely. Punishing them means there are less of them to make jobs. Sending their money to an account overseas to be removed from our economy hurts our currency and creates opportunity costs in future business and investments.
It's a shady political class that has us doing everything backward. Most of Amercia is hoping for a refund from the government every year. Of what? Our own money? We are losing money, and the chance to pay bills or invest it, so that the government can take what it wants, because we don't know what we're missing. We budget what the government let's us keep after taking our money to start with. How much better would a middle class life be if we never paid any FICA or Medicare, paid the bills up when we were younger instead of struggling against the system, and let the money we keep earn some interest year-round before we paid our taxes? And for what? So a demagogue can gift $240 MILLION dollars to Hollywood producers to float between film sales? SO someone's ideology can find purchase by LEASING $40 million in green cars for the military, rather than buying thousands of cheaper cars during a financial crisis?
We have to encourage people to make wealth, not excuse them for failing and basing our elections on class warfare.
stuff
Matthew:
I have no interest in stirring up another crapstorm, so I'm going to say this as gently as I can: I cannot have a meaningful conversation with you. That's not a dig, but for whatever reason you just don't seem to receive the messages I'm sending (and vice-versa, no doubt).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Wouldn't the process simply become politicized?A very smart libertarian friend who's worked in healthcare in the States suggested a prize scheme rather than the current model to fund research. A certain problem disease gets targeted and a massive prize, similar to the X-prize for space exploration, is given to the company that produces the first working solution. It keeps the benefits of capitalism but allows them to be harnessed for social goods as well.That's a brilliant idea.
Did the X-prize?
BTW, that is an interesting solution Paul, it does still mean that someone has to offer capital capable to make the cost of investment possible, just in a different format.
|
Wouldn't the process simply become politicized?A very smart libertarian friend who's worked in healthcare in the States suggested a prize scheme rather than the current model to fund research. A certain problem disease gets targeted and a massive prize, similar to the X-prize for space exploration, is given to the company that produces the first working solution. It keeps the benefits of capitalism but allows them to be harnessed for social goods as well.That's a brilliant idea.Did the X-prize?
BTW, that is an interesting solution Paul, it does still mean that someone has to offer capital capable to make the cost of investment possible, just in a different format.
Yes, it does mean that. The cost of development wouldn't change, after all, so you'd need an incentive to make the companies invest in that line of research.
The money could be government. It could equally well be international funds as many other countries would have an interest in incentivising certain diseases for research into a cure. Or private funds could do it. I think the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing something like this with malaria research, or it may be subsidising the research. Not 100% sure.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Wouldn't the process simply become politicized?A very smart libertarian friend who's worked in healthcare in the States suggested a prize scheme rather than the current model to fund research. A certain problem disease gets targeted and a massive prize, similar to the X-prize for space exploration, is given to the company that produces the first working solution. It keeps the benefits of capitalism but allows them to be harnessed for social goods as well.That's a brilliant idea.
No..this is a great idea. People respond to incentives. You do have to deal with fraud and politicization, but not any more than dealing with government takeovers. Probably a good deal less.
Same thing with energy. When an oil tycoon sinks a billion dollars into a wind farm so his company can transition to green energy when the time comes, you should pay attention to what he says. And what he says is we can't live off it now. We need time for companies to develop it. Don't listen to the agendized hogwash that they want to kill new technology, that's not true. It's just garbage you hear from someone who doesn't know anything. Energy companies provide energy. They'd like to di it cheaper, but congress won't let them. They'd like to see emissions reduced worldwide, because it would profit them, but congress won't let them do it. They'd like to not go broke when the oil and gas runs out - in a few hundred years, so they'll work it out or someone else will. The key: incentivize it, and then get out of the way.
Stem cells are another great example. In private research, use of adult stem cells is trucking right along. It has results, they can be measured, investors are interested, and so it has funding. Embryonic stem cell research doesn't yield resutls. But we want to politicize the process. Proponents ignore the fact that nothing is happening from the research and call America backwards. We'll fall behind in medical research if we don't...fund this research that yields such poor results that no one wants to invest it. So people want grants to continue not producing anything.
Incentives work. Companies spend part of their budget on research. When the research yields results, we have progress. When companies throw a billion dollars at something, and then abandon it to look at something else, there is probably a better reason than 'pollution is free', as one of my progressive friends insisted.
We'll fall behind in medical research if we don't...fund this research that yields such poor results that no one wants to invest it.
No one? Singapore is investing heavily in it. Of course, it might be that you personally know much more about the potential of embryonic research than any of those people. Then again, given your statements regarding climate science*, one might -- without any insult intended -- also question your expertise in biomedicine as well.
* I'm NOT saying humans are changing the climate. Nor am I saying they aren't. I'm a professionl geoscientist, and I've worked at the Langley Research Center where NASA does their climate research, and I personally have no idea. I can also say that the scientific community is a whole lot less certain than you seem to think you are -- and these are people who actually understand how climate works. The feedback loops are complex, and climate is a HELL of a lot more complex than weather. But I know enough to avoid making absolute statements about it that are anchored in total ignorance of the fundamentals.
Also, all nations are predators as far as I'm concerned. There is power, and there are moves. This whole America is the world's police force, America is the force for freedom is b@%%%@@!. America is looking out for itself.
We try to help too.
Compare Germany's treatment at the end of World War One, by the understandably vindictive world community, to it's treatment at the end of World War Two. We try to help. Maybe it's not entirely altruistic, but we try to help.
My wife's father flew Chinese troops over the hump to fight the Japanese. He also flew the Berlin airlift.
We try to help.
Don't get me wrong. My family is all American, and all of them are trying to help.
I prefer to differentiate between the state and the people because what the two do are not motivated the same and they don't act the same.
Also, states are changing their behavior out of need. It's no longer feasible to throw your weight around as done in preceding centuries.
Canada does nice things too, but it's just steam on the pot.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
We'll fall behind in medical research if we don't...fund this research that yields such poor results that no one wants to invest it.No one? Singapore is investing heavily in it. Of course, it might be that you personally know much more about the potential of embryonic research than any of those people. Then again, given your statements regarding climate science*, one might -- without any insult intended -- also question your expertise in biomedicine as well.
* I'm NOT saying humans are changing the climate. Nor am I saying they aren't. I'm a professionl geoscientist, and I've worked at the Langley Research Center where NASA does their climate research, and I personally have no idea. The feedback loops are complex, and climate is a HELL of a lot more complex than weather. But I know enough to avoid making absolute statements about it that are anchored in solid ignorance of the fundamentals.
I will say on climate global warming two words falsified data.
And has been pointed out, semi-sarcastically weather isn't climate change, except when it is.
It may be happening, but you can't tell it by the current models.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
You do a great job of not insulting me there, Kirth. : }
On stem cell research: private companies here at home are not invested in it. When you read stories about stem cell research successes, they are adult stem cells. I am not a biologist in any form. I read what I read. I see the degree of abusive politization of the issue, and conclude that screeching about all we are definitvely losing by NOT funding the research with tax dollars means there is trickeration afoot.
On climate change. I respect that you say you don't know one way or the other. What I think omst conservatives object to is not looking into the idea of climate change, even examing our contribution, if such can be examined with any certainty. What we object to is risking (we might say ruining) our economy with arbitrary taxes in response to a problem that might not be a problem and might not be something we have caused or can do anything about.
Specifically, I scoff at global warming because if you're a GW theorist and you make a prediction that turns out not to be true, the theory remains the same. If global temperatures are not what they were predicted to be in 1980, the theory ought to change or we should throw it out. If California is not under water by 1999, and all the other sea rising, temperature increasing projections turn out to be false, the theory has issues. We should at some point stop fearmongering and risking jobs and the stability of the dollar and start looking at problems we can understand. GW is a moving target that doesn't seem to get much criticism for all of the exposed lies, cover-ups and hoaxes. Gore got a nobel prize for his work on it, and still gets caught a few times a year telling a whopper he then refuses to recant. Like all of the world's glacial ice being gone by 2014.
Faced with all those false predictions, and emails that demonstrate the peer-review process isn't what it used to be, and I am left to wonder why we'd risk billions in new taxes, lost jobs and further instability on something we have seen countless lies about already.
If California is not under water by 1999...
You might start with predictions made by credible peer-reviewed scientists, not by ignorant tree-hugging hippies (or worse, by Al Gore, who knows even less than they do).
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Kirth - one thng I'd add about your articel is that the US needs to look at how Singapore gets those fields. The government financing for embryonic stem cell research aside, they have an overall climate for luring business from abroad. If were could be considered a tax haven for large corporations, we could dominate any field we wanted.
I will say on climate global warming two words: falsified data.
And I'll respond with two words: media spin. Have you read the "falsified" sections, both what was released and what came out later? I have. I'll state point-blank that we had an unbelievably asinine case of siege mentality among some of my so-called colleagues leading to a "breaking" story that wouldn't have made the news at all if the people at East Anglia, for example, hadn't tried to make everything "top secret."
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
If California is not under water by 1999...You might start with predictions made by credible peer-reviewed scientists, not by ignorant tree-hugging hippies (or worse, by Al Gore, who knows even less than they do).
Agreed. The point is that a lot of the community doesn't buy into GW. They research it. They review each other's stuff and a lot of conclusions are either mixed, or very dismissive about at least our role in the phenomenon. The scientists tellyou things like 'solar activity has a big imapct on temperatures and climate. We can't control solar activity.' The warmologists at the UN (masquerading as scientists) influence their peer-review process, write in more political tones, and are completely dismissive of what they call deniers. And yet their predictions are wrong and they keep shuffling the numbers to say something they don't say. Most recent dodge is that it is colder because gloabl warming is making it hotter. If any other field just explained a complete contradiction as proof of their theroy, one would think they'd be flamed.
Kirth - one thng I'd add about your articel is that the US needs to look at how Singapore gets those fields. The government financing for embryonic stem cell research aside, they have an overall climate for luring business from abroad. If were could be considered a tax haven for large corporations, we could dominate any field we wanted.
Why don't we, then? Aerospace moved to Scandinavia in the 90's, and they're still investing heavily. Cutting-edge nuclear energy reseach moved to Japan first, and increasingly to China. Petroleum extraction from shales and tar sands was being done in Canada long before we picked up on it. Tidal energy? France and Canada.
Meanwhile, Detroit still makes cars that no one wants, and we U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. I'd much rather invest in the future than in the past.
Most recent dodge is that it is colder because gloabl warming is making it hotter. If any other field just explained a complete contradiction as proof of their theroy, one would think they'd be flamed.
You do understand that it's been predicted for decades that a warmer climate would lead to a colder Europe, for example? The Earth does not heat uniformly. The atmosphere, oceans, and clouds form complex positive and negative feedback loops. Your oversimplifications, in the form of ignoring the way things really work, does not strengthen your point -- to the contrary, in fact. If you want to convince more people to share your doubt, you might not making incorrect points that are so easily seen through. Gore did the same thing you're doing, for the other side, and that's why (rightfully) no one believes him.
What I can say is this: geologically-speaking, the climate SHOULD be getting warmer; that's consistent with the end of the last big Ice Age being only 11,000 years ago. Looking at long-term trends (more than a decade) and correcting for urban heat island effects, we still see an increase that seems like it might be a bit faster than anticipated. Now, is that extra bit anthropogenically assisted? I assure you I have no idea. Contrary to your claims, most serious researchers suspect it might be. The nay-sayers seem to be increasingly outnumbered, at least if we include only researchers who (a) are actually experts on climate science and (b) are not on the payroll of a major oil company.
Which leads to another important point. There's a lot of money in inciting a panic and selling "carbon credits." I'm against that whole idea. There's an equal amount of money in quashing research, so that oil profits stay up. Both of these market forces are actively working to obscure research findings, because every time we get someone with what looks like serious research disproving it, it turns out we've got a guy paid to say what he did, and no reproducable results. Equally, every time someone comes out with an "instructional" movie about the topic, it turns out to be a steaming pile of politically-motivated crap.
So I'm understandably sick of money and politics obscuring the science, and equally sick of people picking sides without knowing a damn thing about it.
[
I will say on climate global warming two words falsified data.
And has been pointed out, semi-sarcastically weather isn't climate change, except when it is.
It may be happening, but you can't tell it by the current models.
Except the data wasn't actually falsified. And I wouldn't trust bloggers and journalists as a prime source of scientific claims.
"media spin" is an understatement...
edit: With respect to the emails that were revealed by hackers, the worst thing in them seems to be the (alleged) attempts to avoid the FOA requests. There is zero credible evidence of falsifications - every claim to that effect has been debunked as a misunderstanding or deliberate falsehood. (from what I understand, and I've tried to follow the story pretty closely though I am not a climate scientist)
If a journalist or blogger makes the mistake of confusing weather and climate, so what? It doesn't discredit the science, just the journalism.
|
Journalists and bloggers with an agenda already. Namely fishing around to try and find anything that would disprove a scientific fact. Sad that they resort to hacking Climate Change laboratories, rather then, oh, I don't know, publishing scientific papers in reputable journals.
What a journalist publishing something in a reputable scientific magazine??? Do you have your ice skates on?
|
|
Journalists and bloggers with an agenda already. Namely fishing around to try and find anything that would disprove a scientific fact. Sad that they resort to hacking Climate Change laboratories, rather then, oh, I don't know, publishing scientific papers in reputable journals.What a journalist publishing something in a reputable scientific magazine??? Do you have your ice skates on?
And I was thinking these journalists and bloggers have scientific credentials. I mean, they are clearly able to understand complex scientific theories, detailed data and the like and come to a reasoned conclusion.
Or.. are they just laymen talking about things they don't understand?
Your oversimplifications... does not strengthen...
you might not making...
Kirth Gersen, after driving to and from Dallas in the last day or so, has his brain scrambled. Please forgive this pathetic display of babbling.
I was gonna say something, but I reckoned it don't make no nevermind nohow.
Hell, you and the pony and Fakey have free license to jump all over me with both boots when I start babbling. Somebody's got to, and these johnny-come-latelies ain't gonna be it.
|
|
I was gonna say something, but I reckoned it don't make no nevermind nohow.Hell, you and the pony and Fakey have free license to jump all over me with both boots when I start babbling. Somebody's got to, and these johnny-come-latelies ain't gonna be it.
I pulled like a 16 hour day or something yesterday. I have trouble counting.
Part of the reason I babble all the time anyway; I don't have a pot within which to produce micturant.|
|
I was gonna say something, but I reckoned it don't make no nevermind nohow.Hell, you and the pony and Fakey have free license to jump all over me with both boots when I start babbling. Somebody's got to, and these johnny-come-latelies ain't gonna be it.I pulled like a 16 hour day or something yesterday. I have trouble counting.
Part of the reason I babble all the time anyway; I don't have a pot within which to produce micturant.
Mwahahahaha Thats what I am here for. Of course I was at work all day and could not.
Kirth Gersen, after driving to and from Dallas in the last day or so, has his brain scrambled. Please forgive this pathetic display of babbling.Your oversimplifications... does not strengthen...
you might not making...
Stuffy Grammarian,
I know this is off-topic, and I'm gonna let you finish, but I just wanna say how pathetic it is that a lovely, smart chick like you is reduced to chatting up strange men online. There's lots a guyz like me who love r girls with good grammer.
Sincereley,
Darby
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
many things, mostly worthwile. : )
I believe my point was that amid all the conversation about how much the earth is warming and how much might be our fault, we have people still crying wolf, dating the end of the polar ice caps, and trying to send all of our money to other countries to help them prepare for a greener world. You are right to say the jury is out on GW. But the active proponents lobbying to raise our taxes hgher than ever before are demanding action now now now.
I am sorry if I don't seem clear. I don't deny there's some warming occurring. I don't write off the need to look into it. I dismiss the attempts to politicize the issue and go spending my money on something a lot of scientists aren't convinced yet.
I read a long and pretty complicated paper on CO2 conversion in the atmosphere. It talked a lot about solar activity. It suggest humanity couldn't be responsible for more than 3% of the overall increase in temperatures since the industrial revolution. Other researchers will say a higher percentage. While we have this huge range, we have to keep from passing 2,000-page bills that completely restructure the way businesses are taxed.
That's the most important point I am trying to make. I know the earth doesn't warm uniformly. I have heard, but don't fully understand, that Eurpos is supposed to cool some as America warms. But I am in America, and it's freaking cold outside. And this summer was pretty mild, and most of the last decade has been cooler here then the previous decade.
That is the problem. Everytime we change something about the theory, the theroy stay roughly the dsame (with a little more apocalyptic window dressing), and the new data is used to help shift the target. And that is why I don't trust the movement. Cooling, then warming, then when that didn't pan out, climate change, which is convenient because it is harder to predict. The movement is led by crackpots who stand to make billions. It seems like there are more celebrities and lawyers than actual scientists talking about it. But I know some scientists dissent. Not necessarily about whether we are warming this century, but about how much we have to do with it and what it means for us. And what is important to me is that while the debate goes on, we not shut down the debate and pass the straw bill that broke America's back.
As for your other post, we don't become a tax haven because of demagoguery. Mess with the tax code, and someone will invariably yell tax cuts for the rich, which remains the dumbest-yet-most-popular election lie. It's hard to change our tax policy to something useful and uncorrupt when lobbyists and dissemblers prefer to keep doing the same garbage.
And, I hesistate to correct you on something because you don't like it and you're a pretty smart guy, so you might spin this on me hopelessly, but my reading tells me that oil companies have spent billions looking into global warming and new energy, and just look at it as a cost of doing business and a necessary evolution. I think it's easy to claim that oil companies will blow up the planet for a fist full of dollars, but I don't know it has any credibility.
|
|
I was gonna say something, but I reckoned it don't make no nevermind nohow.Hell, you and the pony and Fakey have free license to jump all over me with both boots when I start babbling. Somebody's got to, and these johnny-come-latelies ain't gonna be it.
When you get a chance there is a great book from a couple of years ago about "space-weather" called Storms of the Sun. It helps explain other possible reasons for the earth "warming"
Also, all nations are predators as far as I'm concerned. There is power, and there are moves. This whole America is the world's police force, America is the force for freedom is b@%%%@@!. America is looking out for itself.
We try to help too.
Compare Germany's treatment at the end of World War One, by the understandably vindictive world community, to it's treatment at the end of World War Two. We try to help. Maybe it's not entirely altruistic, but we try to help.
My wife's father flew Chinese troops over the hump to fight the Japanese. He also flew the Berlin airlift.
We try to help....
I prefer to differentiate between the state and the people because what the two do are not motivated the same and they don't act the same.
...
Didn't mean that you can't or don't differentiate, BTW.
It's just I don't think moral or ideological models explain the behavior of states very well. They certainly work when building consensus, but it is rare as far as I can see that they are the real forces behind the exercise of power.
|
|
Also, all nations are predators as far as I'm concerned. There is power, and there are moves. This whole America is the world's police force, America is the force for freedom is b@%%%@@!. America is looking out for itself.
We try to help too.
Compare Germany's treatment at the end of World War One, by the understandably vindictive world community, to it's treatment at the end of World War Two. We try to help. Maybe it's not entirely altruistic, but we try to help.
My wife's father flew Chinese troops over the hump to fight the Japanese. He also flew the Berlin airlift.
We try to help....
I prefer to differentiate between the state and the people because what the two do are not motivated the same and they don't act the same.
...Didn't mean that you can't or don't differentiate, BTW.
It's just I don't think moral or ideological models explain the behavior of states very well. They certainly work when building consensus, but it is rare as far as I can see that they are the real forces behind the exercise of power.
This is why Confuscious was such a revered guy he came up with game theory before it was game theory.
|
|
To Kruelaid re: differentiation;....
I think there's probably a disconnect at times, at most times; the most "benign" state being the ultimate representative of the will of the people still transmogrifies that will into a camel, i.e. a horse designed by committee. All involved knew what a horse ultimately should have looked like.
The fine is set for a crime. If you can't afford it, don't do it. No one bears any responsiblity if I get ticketed other than me. I've got no case if I defend myself by saying 'a ticket would crush my family right now'. The right thing would be not to have gotten the ticket in the beginning.In this country, we have GOT to stop assuming wealthy people are somehow evil and unwealthy people are some sort of downtrodden noble caste. Niether of those is true. If something costs a higher percentage fo your income, make more money. If you don't feel the climate is fair, vote to change it. But the best vote you can cast is for someone who wants to ease the pain for the people who make jobs and manage their companies wisely. Punishing them means there are less of them to make jobs. Sending their money to an account overseas to be removed from our economy hurts our currency and creates opportunity costs in future business and investments.
This has nothing to do with wealthy people being evil or whatnot, it has to do with the fact that fixed-value fines can be ignored by wealthy people, making them, in practice, immune to the expected effect of the fine, in contrast to their effect on poor people. On the other hand, proportional fines are a problem to both poor and rich, achieving the intended goal.
I have boldened part of your text because it beautifully illustrates my point. It implies indirectly that wealthy people (who can pay those fines) can, to a certain extent, be free from the effect of punitive measures on misbehaviour, while others can't.
Again, what does this has to do with "wealthy people are evil" ?
I believe my point was that amid all the conversation about how much the earth is warming and how much might be our fault, we have people still crying wolf, dating the end of the polar ice caps, and trying to send all of our money to other countries to help them prepare for a greener world. You are right to say the jury is out on GW. But the active proponents lobbying to raise our taxes hgher than ever before are demanding action now now now.
I'm not trying to pick on you, and I apologize if any of my earlier posts were sarcastic - I have seen too many points similar to yours raised by blatent anti-science types, and that colored my response.
That said, your point about people crying wolf with respect to the environment is well balanced I think by the parts of your post I've bolded - this is just an economic version of crying wolf. Where is the evidence that any proposed plan to deal with global warming will be so economically devastating?
{snipped to keep this from getting too long}That is the problem. Everytime we change something about the theory, the theroy stay roughly the dsame (with a little more apocalyptic window dressing), and the new data is used to help shift the target. And that is why I don't trust the movement. Cooling, then warming, then when that didn't pan out, climate change, which is convenient because it is harder to predict. The movement is led by crackpots who stand to make billions. It seems like there are more celebrities and...
If you're referring to "global cooling" that was supposedly predicted in the 1970s, that really did not reflect a scientific consensus. I know the link below is wikipedia, but I've seen the same points made by real Climate scientists about global cooling, so it does not strike me as inaccurate (see the introduction):
see also Figure 1 on page 1333 of this paper (which is itself an interesting read):
The Myth of The 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
The term "warming" was used because the global average temperature is going up. Climate change is a more general term (warming is a subset of change). It's not that it's harder or easier to predict, but it's a bit more accurate. If warming causes continental ice to melt, shutting off the gulf stream, causing Europe to freeze over, the term "climate change" covers it better than "global warming".
The movement has attracted crackpots, sure, but to call all the scientists who have spent decades working on this "crackpots" is way out there. It's as bad as claiming that they've falsified their data - that would be a career-ending ethics violation, if not actually criminal. It is somewhat alarming that you would toss around accusations like this so casually.
It's one thing to be skeptical - everyone should be, but be careful of the sources you listen to. Just as there are crackpots who have attached themselves to the global warming bandwagon, I have heard people espouse some crazy conspiracy theories to try to deny global warming, as well as some very aggressive campaigns of disinformation that are unfortunately real.
Climate science is not my field, but I've been paying close attention to it since climategate, to try to learn how the anti-science crowd is making their arguments. Not to sound paranoid, but people are using the same rhetorical techniques to sow doubt and distrust about climate science as the creationists use to try to discredit evolution (closer to my field).
Well, g&+*%&n. The thread is still going. Knife wounds have been kept to a minimum. I've never been prouder to be part of this community.
A lot has been said, mostly on stuff that I don't want to get too involved in. Not because i dislike the topics, but because I don't know much about it(mainly Global Warming. Sex and psychology are my thing. Climate change is the apple to my beloved oranges. For the most part, I think we[i.e. the human race] just need to be avoid crapping where we eat and we'll be okay).
I'm not sure why we're still going on about speeding tickets, but I did enjoy the points made about fines vs. fees and loss of privileges vs. other punishments. In terms of business, I wholeheartedly agree with the point on the role of the individual vs. the company when it comes to profit. Telling someone to make more money if they can't afford something, however, tiptoes towards insult. It ignores other ways that those who lack funds can use to attain their goals(general thrift and specifically saving up for something, which are two big conservative ideals). This may be where a lot of the hostiltity towards the "rich"(quotations only there because what you and I consider rich are probably two different things) comes from. The implication that those with money are somehow better is not plainly stated, but it is lurking under the bed to nip at dangling feet. It might be better to say that one should either re-evaluate their reasons for wanting to purchase something or suggest they consult an accountant. Otherwise this turns into the cariacture of the rich guy walking down the street spitting on a homeless man begging for change and telling him to just go get a job.
Then again, maybe I'm missing something. It's 3:30 in the morning, and I just got home from work, so I'm punchy as hell.
|
|
As my previous post managed to quash the evolution discussion, let's see if I can repeat it for Climate Change. Fear my power, mortals!!! I'm using New Scientist as it's a good smart layman discussion of the science.
New Scientist Magazine Instant Expert
New Scientist Magazine Climate Change Timeline
One point is the theory has changed when it fails to predict things. However, the general trend has been consistently shown from a number of different methodologies, so that part doesn't change. The exact predictions do change however as more data comes in and the models are refined to cope. As Kirth pointed out, climate is a) complex , b) not weather. The anthropogenic part, as Kirth notes, is not yet proven but is considered by the people who do study this to be the one that fits the data best. Exactly how it fits is still being worked on.
Despite what some people who do not accept climate change say, it is not all down to humans and none of the supporters who understand it claim it is. Some is caused by the solar and cosmic 'weather' pointed out by Crimson Jester. Some is caused by time-honoured and well understood geophysical processes that Kirth is going to be far more able to detail than I am. But saying human activity has no significant effect does not seem to be matching with the evidence.
Despite what some people who do not accept climate change say, it is not all down to humans and none of the supporters who understand it claim it is. Some is caused by the solar and cosmic 'weather' pointed out by Crimson Jester. Some is caused by time-honoured and well understood geophysical processes that Kirth is going to be far more able to detail than I am. But saying human activity has no significant effect does not seem to be matching with the evidence.
If an effect is measureable, does that mean it is significant?
|
|
Despite what some people who do not accept climate change say, it is not all down to humans and none of the supporters who understand it claim it is. Some is caused by the solar and cosmic 'weather' pointed out by Crimson Jester. Some is caused by time-honoured and well understood geophysical processes that Kirth is going to be far more able to detail than I am. But saying human activity has no significant effect does not seem to be matching with the evidence.
If an effect is measureable, does that mean it is significant?
Not always. It you're six foot seven is another millimeter of height significant? No, but it is measurable. I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to say if there's a difference in climate, but in theory there is.
Most skeptics aren't skeptical about climate change itself, that one's pretty much proved. Now we're into the why's and how much is each factor contributing, which is more challenging to determine and more complex, hence more room for debate. It also influences the what to do about it as if the vast majority has nothing to do with humanity's activities, the best response is to hold on tight rather than rearrange deckchairs. This is not the majority scientific opinion at the moment, however.
And do we know that a change in overall climate is going to be "bad" (for who/what?).
Following the link to the original article, I saw this:
[quote=]"The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years," Kröpelin said. "They have never seen so much grazing land."
"Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass," he said.
"Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back," he said.
"The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable."
Do greenies not care about the people and animals of africa? [sorry, couldn't resist]
|
|
And do we know that a change in overall climate is going to be "bad" (for who/what?).
Assuming the models are correct, then for the majority of people, things will be worse. That's majority, not all.
EDIT: Yes, but they care about the people of India. the Middle East, South America, Oceania, the vast majority of Africa which isn't the Sahara, and, quite importantly, themselves, too.
And do we know that a change in overall climate is going to be "bad" (for who/what?).
Assuming the models are correct, then for the majority of people, things will be worse. That's majority, not all.
EDIT: Yes, but they care about the people of India. the Middle East, South America, Oceania, the vast majority of Africa which isn't the Sahara, and, quite importantly, themselves, too.
Yup, but we need to be clear and honest about our goals. If a trend is benefiting a group of people that have had it "worse" than us for thousands of years, we are ok with stopping it if possible, because it might make our lives tougher. Gee, why do the people in the Northern Africa and Middle East dislike us so much? [just kidding, don't take this seriously]
EDIT: Just clicked on a map of possible effects of global warming from that Nat. Geo. site. It showed a map with various points labeled around the world, one in or around the midwestern US says, "Increasing Yields". That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. Sure, some others are suppose to be going to suck, but hey, me and mine right? Me and mine.
Sex and psychology are my thing.
I'm beginning to think that I picked the wrong field to major in. ;)
This may be where a lot of the hostiltity towards the "rich"(quotations only there because what you and I consider rich are probably two different things) comes from. The implication that those with money are somehow better is not plainly stated, but it is lurking under the bed to nip at dangling feet. It might be better to say that one should either re-evaluate their reasons for wanting to purchase something or suggest they consult an accountant. Otherwise this turns into the cariacture of the rich guy walking down the street spitting on a homeless man begging for change and telling him to just go get a job.
I agree. I started my career in the financial industry. During the 90’s it was awkward to review business magazines over and over again with companies such as Enron and Citigroup praised as examples of ethical capitalism. It only took an hour or so of research to see that the articles assumed profit automatically meant integrity.
The flip side of that is everyone “hates” the rich – even those who would be considered the “rich” themselves. New York magazine used to do a issue every year (they may still do) where they interview folks from all different economic levels in NY and everyone feels broke! From the woman making 35,000 a year and still accepting “gifts” from her parents to the guy making 10 million a year and saying angrily over $200 sushi – “a million doesn’t go as far as it used to.”
Money talks and I feel – as it’s been said by someone else on these boards – capital is much more respected and valued than labor.
I also agree that telling someone to just work harder and make more money strikes me as coming from someone sheltered or a little naïve about the real world. The last two folks who told me that was a guy who was unemployed and moved back in with his parents and another was a good friend of mine who angrily said that if you can’t afford to be living in Manhattan you should stop whining about it and move to the suburbs.
I pointed out to my friend that his father was wealthy and had put down a million dollar deposit on his mortgage for his NY apartment. I also shared that most folks didn’t have that option and that although I was making a six figure salary (still am thank goodness), I didn’t live in Manhattan because the math didn’t add up for me.
(I should add that the guy moving in with his parents seemed like a good guy, just down on his luck. I am not implying he is "lesser" for doing that - but his lack of empathy was strange to me. I had a two year peroid in my life where I could not find a good job and kept accepting freelance work that was below my regular pay grade. It was all I could find at the time. Some weeks I could only afford a slice of Pizza for lunch and I would skip dinner two days a week.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Update: I can't find my coptic satanists anywhere, I appologize for the faulty memory.
Urizen: Can you send me a mail on FB? for the life of me I can't remember your real name...
As to climate change, when the models don't match reality (ignoring the warming in the middle ages, hockey stick) when the scientists destroy/hide/alter data (that's why I posted the link to the Darwin 'adjustments') Hide the decline by switching data gathering methods when the 'old methods' no longer give the results you want (switching from tree ring data when it no longer bolstered your arguement) and actively moving to keep oposing theories from the peer process, something's wrong with the picture. If I'm reading this right, we're actually doing pretty good.
As to the hacked/leaked e-mails. Aren't we supposed to cheer whistleblowers? I mean the data's out there, surely more peer review is better than trying to silence the critics.
|
|
Update: I can't find my coptic satanists anywhere, I appologize for the faulty memory.
Urizen: Can you send me a mail on FB? for the life of me I can't remember your real name...
As to climate change, when the models don't match reality (ignoring the warming in the middle ages, hockey stick) when the scientists destroy/hide/alter data (that's why I posted the link to the Darwin 'adjustments') Hide the decline by switching data gathering methods when the 'old methods' no longer give the results you want (switching from tree ring data when it no longer bolstered your arguement) and actively moving to keep oposing theories from the peer process, something's wrong with the picture. If I'm reading this right, we're actually doing pretty good.
As to the hacked/leaked e-mails. Aren't we supposed to cheer whistleblowers? I mean the data's out there, surely more peer review is better than trying to silence the critics.
Counterpoint to the leaked e-mails point above
Everytime we change something about the theory, the theroy stay roughly the dsame (with a little more apocalyptic window dressing), and the new data is used to help shift the target. And that is why I don't trust the movement.
I'm not totally sure what this means, but it's important to realize that models don't come down from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets; they're developed and calibrated empirically. If a model makes a bum prediction that actual data later contradict, one would hope the model would be adjusted to account for this -- the basic conclusion might be the same, but all other specific predictions made by that model would be adjusted (if that's what you mean by "shift the target"). Models get better as they are altered to account for more and more actual data. That's how they're SUPPOSED to work; it's not "dishonest" or "bad" or "a conspiracy" to improve them using more data, and then re-run them to see what they show after that.
Maybe I misunderstand your stance, but it almost seems like you expect a perfect, unchanging model that will automatically make predictions that fit the observations 100% of the time. That's not a realistic expectation, because that's not how models work. Models have to be adjusted and recalibrated. All predictions are based on the best model available at that time -- or better yet, based on a consensus of more than one model.
As to climate change, when the models don't match reality (ignoring the warming in the middle ages, hockey stick) when the scientists destroy/hide/alter data (that's why I posted the link to the Darwin 'adjustments') Hide the decline by switching data gathering methods when the 'old methods' no longer give the results you want (switching from tree ring data when it no longer bolstered your arguement) and actively moving to keep oposing theories from the peer process, something's wrong with the picture. If I'm reading this right, we're actually doing pretty good.
As to the hacked/leaked e-mails. Aren't we supposed to cheer whistleblowers? I mean the data's out there, surely more peer review is better than trying to silence the critics.
Just a few quick points before I've got to work for the day -
For your linked optimism - maybe that's good if you live in Greenland :) That is a temperature record from Greenland only - global climate change refers to the entire planet.
"Hide the decline" - this refers to tree ring proxy data. Up until 1960 or so growth rings in trees correlated pretty well with actual temperature measurements, so they were used as a 'proxy' for those actual temperature measurements, for regions/time periods when no direct measurements were available. After 1960, the tree ring proxy data no longer agreed with the direct measurements, and instead seemed to indicate declining temperatures. In other words, the proxy data was contradicting the direct temperature measurements made by thermometers and satellites. This is the decline that was adjusted for (hidden). The reasons for it are still not completely known, and the problem has been discussed in published papers since the late 1990s (if I remember correctly).
Is this bad? When one set of data seems to be out of line with several others, all of which give consistent results, why not try to understand the wonky data?
As for cheering the hackers who stole the email - let me ask you: What happened to the guy who hacked into Sarah Palin's email? Should the same standard apply here? Is it wrong in both cases? If wrong in one case and right in another, why?
As for the content of the emails, that is being investigated. The only thing I am aware of that has not been given a reasonable explanation is the (apparent, alleged) attempt to dodge the freedom of information act request. If true, that could be serious.
Not to be a hypocrite by linking to a blog, but there is some discussion here, with links to primary sources. Two points of interest -
the graphs showing that the medieval warm period was localized to greenland/northern europe and a few other places, but the whole planet was not warm in that period.
the discussion about the peer review - some members of the media have tried to twist this into an evil conspiracy to keep dissenting voices from being heard. After reading more about it, from both sides, and seeing what the complaint was in the emails, and the reaction from the staff of the journal, there really is nothing to see there. The main concern was over the perceived decline in quality of that journal, such that the scientists didn't want to publish there. It's more about maintaining high standards and prestige than anything even remotely to do with silencing dissent.
See in particular comment #53 in the above-linked discussion, and the link to the statement from the actual publisher of the journal in question. Is "silencing the critics" really an accurate way to describe what was going on? The paper by the critics is already published, for one thing!
The fine is set for a crime. If you can't afford it, don't do it. No one bears any responsiblity if I get ticketed other than me. I've got no case if I defend myself by saying 'a ticket would crush my family right now'. The right thing would be not to have gotten the ticket in the beginning.In this country, we have GOT to stop assuming wealthy people are somehow evil and unwealthy people are some sort of downtrodden noble caste. Niether of those is true. If something costs a higher percentage fo your income, make more money. If you don't feel the climate is fair, vote to change it. But the best vote you can cast is for someone who wants to ease the pain for the people who make jobs and manage their companies wisely. Punishing them means there are less of them to make jobs. Sending their money to an account overseas to be removed from our economy hurts our currency and creates opportunity costs in future business and investments.
This has nothing to do with wealthy people being evil or whatnot, it has to do with the fact that fixed-value fines can be ignored by wealthy people, making them, in practice, immune to the expected effect of the fine, in contrast to their effect on poor people. On the other hand, proportional fines are a problem to both poor and rich, achieving the intended goal.
I have boldened part of your text because it beautifully illustrates my point. It implies indirectly that wealthy people (who can pay those fines) can, to a certain extent, be free from the effect of punitive measures on misbehaviour, while others can't.
Again, what does this has to do with "wealthy people are evil" ?
But, it DOESN'T make wealthy people immune to the intended effect. They still receive "points" on their driver's license which can (will) lead to loss of driving priveleges for repeating offenses just like everyone else. And, that is the key. The point of the fines is not to PUNISH. It is to make the roads safer for everybody with the threat of a fine. I have yet to see any argument how this increased rate of fining for the rich (as opposed to those less wealthy) will make the roads appreciably safer for anyone. On the other hand, removing the threat of fines (for everybody) up to the point of loss of priveleges would result in an enormous change to the safety of the roads.
To repeat, the penalty is a fine whose value is (and should, IMO) be based upon the severity of the civil infraction. Extenuating circumstances can adjust such fines with some examples being on the way to the hospital with a sick person or a first time offense. Still, these will determine where on the scale for the infraction that the fine is assessed.
I have seen nothing to state anywhere that the fine is appropriate to the infraction itself rather than to punishing the individual and I have seen nothing anywhere that has shown it would in any way appreciably affect the safety of the roads because it will hit a few rich people hard in the checkbook.
It should be about safety of the roads and the severity of the crime. In all cases it is a case of the government sticking its nose in and limiting the actions of its people. It is necessary. However, I believe such actions should be limited by the severity of the infraction (which it is in the US as opposed to Sweden) and by its impact on the safety of the public (which it is in the US as opposed to Sweden). In Sweden it is about sticking it to the rich guy as opposed to public safety and severity of the infraction.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Maybe I misunderstand your stance, but it almost seems like you expect a perfect, unchanging model that will automatically make predictions that fit the observations 100% of the time. That's not a realistic expectation, because that's not how models work. Models have to be adjusted and recalibrated. All predictions are based on the best model available at that time -- or better yet, based on a consensus of more than one model.
Again, everyone siezes on my skepticism about global warming, when my only real point has been, if we aren't sure about our involvement, how much climate change might occur, or how damaging it may or may not be, we shouldn't gamble our economy on it. If there are solutions avilable, we should incentivize the market to find those solutions, assuming there is enough of a problem o warrant a solution.
My problem with models is that we don't get much of a change in models or predictions after predictions come out wrong, and the scariest models of glacial melt or rising sea levels have all been either completely inaccurate or outright lies. At some point, we should be focusing, as I said a couple of times already, not no the dubious danger of global warming, but the real danger of a deflating dollar, and an unstable global economy.
When I say that cap and trade is a horrible, predictable blow to a struggling American economy, it is because that bill contains measures to increase taxes at every level of our economy, which will further affect the dollar. And as a large part of the goal is to raise money to send to other nations to equip them for modernizing without clear proof ofnthe degree of the problem, gambling our economy in order to essentially create a brand new set of billionaires, in order to reduce the future carbon footprint of an undeveloped nation seems staggeringly stupid.
All I could hear from those meetings in Copenhagen was 'we have to get serious about money. We have to have money. You have to give us money.'
I still think the attempt to destroy data, not respond to FoA requests and switch methodologies to find an answer that fits smacks of corruption. As that office is closely related both to the corrupt UN and IPCC, my skepticism will be really tough to overcome.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Again, what does this has to do with "wealthy people are evil" ?
For what must be the fifth time, the points are:
1) People who are successful largely make better decisions, ergo, they are less likely to acquire an undesirable expense. A wealthy person is not better than a poor person, but they are more careful or better at allocating their resources. The point is not that a poor person is not impacted by a fine, it is that a rich person is not as likely to make a decision that will cost the fine to begin with.
2)It is no one else's business what a person makes or what resources they have. A speeding rich person is not a greater danger on the streets than a speeding poor person. In fact, they are more likely to be able to handle the responsibility for any trouble they cause. The law should treat everyone exactly the same, and if a person doesn't acquire enough wealth and doesn't have the judgement to avoid a ticket, that is his problem. He isn't less guilty than a rich person. The law isn't picking on him just because he can't afford the ticket. The amount of the ticket has nothing to do with whether a person can afford to pay it. The ticket is punitive. It should not also be confiscatory or prejudicial.
For some in this country, we switched from not judging by the color of one's skin to judging by the contents of their wallet, and that ignorance is tearing this country apart.
The only thing I could possibly add to your comment is that wealth is not necessarily indicative of success, and vice versa. But I think that's something we can all agree on even if we didn't know it already.